[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43215-43216]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31jy06-103]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-58,929]
Milprint, Inc., a Division of Bemis Company, Denmark, WI; Notice
of Negative Determination on Reconsideration
On May 10, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The Notice was published in the Federal
Register on May 17, 2006 (71 FR 28712). The workers produce flexible
plastic packaging, used largely in confectionary and snack food
markets, and paper for packaging cigarettes. Workers are not separately
identifiable by product line.
The petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) filed on behalf of the workers of
Milprint, Inc., A Division of Bemis Company, Denmark, Wisconsin
(subject firm) was denied because the subject firm neither imported
flexible plastic packaging or cigarette paper, nor shifted production
of either article abroad during the relevant period. The investigation
also revealed that the parent firm experienced increased sales of
articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the
subject facility during the investigatory period.
The petitioners had also filed as workers of a secondarily-affected
company (supplied component parts for articles produced by a firm with
a currently TAA-certified worker group). In the initial determination,
the Department stated that the subject facility does not supply
cigarette paper component parts to any TAA-certified firm in the
relevant time period and that flexible plastic packaging is not a
component part of confectionaries.
In the request for reconsideration, the United Steel Workers, Local
7-1203 (Union) stated that cigarette packaging paper constituted ten
percent of subject firm production and that it was supplied to a TAA-
certified firm, P.H. Gladfether, Neenah, Wisconsin (TA-W-53,612). The
Union also stated that flexible plastic packaging constituted ninety
percent of subject firm production and that this article was supplied
to TAA-certified companies: Farley's and Sather Candy (TA-W-51,546),
Archibald Candy (TA-W-53,983), American Safety Razor (TA-W-57,323), and
Bob's Candy (TA-W-57,772).
To be certified as a secondarily-affected company, the subject firm
must have a customer with a currently TAA-certified worker group and
the subject firm produces a component part of the product that was the
basis for the customer's certification. In addition, the TAA-certified
customer must account for at least twenty percent of subject firm's
sales or production or the loss of business with the customer
contributed importantly to the workers' separations.
According to the Union, cigarette paper production constituted only
ten percent of subject firm production. Even if P.H. Gladfether,
Neenah, Wisconsin was the subject firm's only customer of this product,
sales to P.H. Gladfether would have accounted for less than twenty
percent of overall sales or production of the subject firm. Further,
P.H. Gladfether, Neenah, Wisconsin was
[[Page 43216]]
not a major customer of the subject firm. Therefore, the Department
determines P.H. Gladfether accounted for less than twenty percent of
overall subject firm sales or production and the loss of business with
this customer did not contribute importantly to the workers'
separations.
In order to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for
TAA as secondarily-affected workers of a company that supplied flexible
plastic packaging to a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker
group, the Department requested the subject firm's 2005 sales figures
for Farley's and Sather Candy, Archibald Candy, American Safety Razor,
and Bob's Candy.
The reconsideration investigation revealed that, during the
relevant period, the subject firm conducted no business with three of
the customers identified by the Union and conducted an insignificant
amount of business with the fourth customer. As such, the Department
determines that each customer accounted for less that twenty percent of
overall subject firm sales or production and that the loss of business
with each customer did not contribute importantly to the workers'
separations.
The Union also alleged in the request for reconsideration that
flexible plastic packaging production had shifted abroad. During the
reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed that flexible
plastic packaging production did not shift abroad but shifted to
affiliated production facilities in Lancaster, Wisconsin and Lebanon,
Pennsylvania.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings, I
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law
or of the facts which would justify revision of the Department of
Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of July 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-12208 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P